March 30, 2011

The bill would bar public employees from striking and would prohibit binding arbitration for police officers and firefighters. It would allow bargaining over wages, but not health coverage and pensions and would allow public-employee unions to bargain only when the public employer chose to do so....

The bill would allow public employees who are covered by union contracts but who choose not to belong to the union to opt out of paying union dues or fees. The bill would also bar any governmental unit in Ohio from deducting any part of a worker’s paycheck and giving it to the union for political activities unless the worker gave express permission....

NYT calls it anti-union and of course leaves out the "govt worker" adjective.

So I recommend conservatives stay on message with this issue..."we oppose govt worker unions for the following reasons.....govt workers are paid more than the taxpayers and our fiscal health & the country's future is on the line."

The unions protested, but all the reporters and camera crews were in Madison. If it's not on TV or in the newspapers, it doesn't happen, you know. Also, the unions spent all their money agitating in Madison. Didn't have any left to do the same in Ohio. No money for busing in outsiders, etc. And, Ohio State students are more interested in partying than protesting.

Forget asking where the drum circles are. Garage mahal has repeatedly insinuated the pro-Walker crowd here are cowards for not standing up to police and firefighter unions. Care to comment, GM? Are the people of Ohio simply more courageous than those of WI? In any case, the line you have insisted nobody had the guts to cross has now been crossed.

I'd been excited by this, but now I'm afraid implementation will get at least delayed by the referendum process. I don't know whether or not a ballot initiative would succeed in overturning it, but apparently if they get enough signatures to put it on the ballot, implementation is on hold until the election.

Oh, I hope that doesn't happen. I'm a state university professor in Ohio, and I'm one of only about five non-union members at the university. And I am absolutely fed up with the union raiding my paycheck each month. Sick of it. If nothing else, I want them prohibited from deducting union dues. This is actually one thing that could make me quit my job and go elsewhere. Somewhere without a unionized faculty.

How about a full-frontal assault? Throw down the gauntlet and have the real debate we need to have. Private sector unions cannot simply be grafted onto the public sector. There are no protections for taxpayers in the arrangement.

All I'll say is we'll see if, as the Professor has it, Ohio has "crushed" public unions. Kasich's approval rating -- already! -- is at 30%, his disapproval rating at 46%. It's interesting, I think, that neither he nor Walker breathed a word about killing public employee unions during their campaigns. So the intense reaction in both states to their moves cannot merely be written off as the howling of a disgruntled minority that lost on the issue at the ballot.

As to Tim, doesn't the fact he's one of only 5 non-union professors at his university say something about the support for public unions?

So, as I wrote above, I am fairly confident Ohio voters will overturn SB5 on a referendum. And, hey, then we'll really know what the voters think of the right of teachers, firefighters, police, and other state employees to bargain collectively for a decent wage.

@tim maguire If workers can get union benefits without paying union dues, then who would pay?

If the union wants to run a closed shop, they can have people who don't pay fired.

The unions don't want to be in the position of having to fire and dun people for not paying dues. They want the government to take care of it for them, so they can pretend that being in a union is all benefit and no cost.

"And, hey, then we'll really know what the voters think of the right of teachers, firefighters, police, and other state employees to bargain collectively for a decent wage."

And if the voters don't pass such a referendum then it will only encourage more states.

This is a process that the public unions know they will lose once legislators and the public realize they can take on these special interests and win. The unions can't afford to lose a single battle or they will all fall like dominos. That is why they went all in in WI. Unfortunately for them, WI has distracted them from IN and OH and the other states who will decide to take on the issue next. No matter how things play out in WI or for Gov. Walker, he has done a wonderful thing for the fiscal health of our nation.

Peter Friedman said...All I'll say is we'll see if, as the Professor has it, Ohio has "crushed" public unions. Kasich's approval rating -- already! -- is at 30%, his disapproval rating at 46%. It's interesting, I think, that neither he nor Walker breathed a word about killing public employee unions during their campaigns. So the intense reaction in both states to their moves cannot merely be written off as the howling of a disgruntled minority that lost on the issue at the ballot.

As to Tim, doesn't the fact he's one of only 5 non-union professors at his university say something about the support for public unions?

So, as I wrote above, I am fairly confident Ohio voters will overturn SB5 on a referendum. And, hey, then we'll really know what the voters think of the right of teachers, firefighters, police, and other state employees to bargain collectively for a decent wage.

3/31/11 8:20 AM

You really believe Ohio taxpayers are going to go all out to support public sector unions so they can have the joy of paying even higher taxes to maintain public sector workers pay and benefits? Perhaps if the polls were to ask how much more in taxes are you willing to pay so public sector workers can maintain pay and benefits then the disapproval ratings of Kasich and Walker would be reversed. It's all well and fine to support collective bargaining rights in the abstract but when it comes to actually having to pay for it people will put their pocket ahead of yours just like the public sector unions put their ahead of the taxpayers.

If workers can get union benefits without paying union dues, then who would pay?

The only reason I could imagine belonging to a union is if I didn't think I could get a better wage on my own. And as I am pretty sure I am better than the average employee, I am pretty sure I could get a better wage.

In your absence, which seemed to coincide with the release of and uproar over a certain threatening statement, there was some speculation (by commenters here, who will remain nameless...cough, cough, me) that your actual name is:

If workers can get union benefits without paying union dues, then who would pay?

The simple alternative is to allow the "benefits" of union representation to flow to union members, while those who don't join get paid whatever they can negotiate on their own - presumably less.

This is different from, for example, requiring younger union members to pay dues, which are used to negotiate contracts in which older, "more senior" members get one level of pay, opportunity, and benefits while the younger "less senior" folks get a lesser level.

It is over in Ohio. The unions will try to have a referendum on the bill in Nov. But after all the intimidation and threats of boycotts against business owners who won't go along with the thug unions[including Police unions] in Wisconsin they will have a snowball's chance in hell of winning. The unions have just insured their own destuction. The rest of the country does not want to be like the disgraceful state Wisconsin

I had a contract with a company that had a combination of union and non-union workers in all their branches. The non-union workers had higher wages, less deducted from the paychecks and better benefits than the union workers did. It was to the advantage of the company to do this since by the time you added up what the company had to pay to the union, to the union retirement, to the workers and then the cost of the union dues and the amount the union people had to pay in initiation fees the difference was unbelievable.